Which pre-war stars could play today?

[Frank A]

Everyone of them could play in todays games. Why not? Look at the baseballs they used, do you think all of those players would be hitting better with todays baseball? Look at the size of the gloves today. Look at the equiptment as compared to the past. Look how much better the players are treated. All these things would make the players of the past much better at what they did. Cobb would still steal bases, Ruth would still pound the ball and the pitchers would last forever. Frank

[mr2686]

I think one thing that would level the playing field for the pre-war players would be modern medicine. How many of them did not/could not put up better stats because they had injuries they had to play through (pulls, strains, dead arms etc)? Today, they could have surgery and rehab and comeback better than before. If you have talent and smarts, you'll always find a way to adapt as the game changes and progresses. Also, better equipment today would make a lot of the pre-war players that much better.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yesteryear players may be able to play today, but maybe not.

The issue is wheather they would be in their "old" bodies - or be able to take advantage of modern times and develop a "new" body.

Physiologically, each successive generation, on average, gets bigger, stronger and faster.

I am a competitive Masters swimmer, but, growing up in the era I did, I am able to go faster than Johnny Weissmuller at the 100 Meter Freestyle. If Johnny Weissmuller were to be born when I was, he most assuredly be much faster than his times if the 1920's.

Look at the Track & Field 100 Meters sprint - todays runners are far superior in times. BUT - if older runners could take advantage of modern medical & training & diet, they would be in modern bodies and able to run much faster than they did long ago.

Same for baseball. Today's pitchers can throw faster. Today's outfielders can throw the ball farther. Todays hitters can hit the ball farther.

Common sense folks.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I think one thing that would level the playing field for the pre-war players would be modern medicine. How many of them did not/could not put up better stats because they had injuries they had to play through (pulls, strains, dead arms etc)? Today, they could have surgery and rehab and comeback better than before. If you have talent and smarts, you'll always find a way to adapt as the game changes and progresses. Also, better equipment today would make a lot of the pre-war players that much better.

An interesting point. And if the old fellows accepted advances in modern medicine, would they also accept modern guidance on pitch counts?

[barrysloate]

Backstroke (and now I know why you use that name)- I think some sports from yesteryear are different than others. While I do believe the old time baseball players could adjust and succeed in the majors today, I would not say the same for professional basketball players. Did you ever see NBA footage from the late 1940's? Do you think those guys could hold their own against Kevin Durant or Lebron James? They would be completely outplayed. And NFL players would suffer too because players today probably outweigh them by 100 pounds. But baseball is a different kind of game and I think the old time players would do quite well.

[Touch'EmAll]

The most likely type of yesteryear player to make it today would be singles hitters - more of just a pure hand/eye coordination issue. I doubt if athlete hand/eye coordination has improved over the years like strength.

The strength required to be a top HR hitter today - I don't know if many prewar players could bring that to the table successfully.

Ty Cobb - time warp him up - would be been Pete Rose/Rod Carew.
Rogers Hornsby - time warp him up - would be George Brett/Tony Gwynn.

Cobb would have to lay off the basepath tactics/antics, however. Today he would get his ass so fast picked off and thrown out it would make his head spin.

And Mr. Walter Johnson & Mr. Cy Young would have to "bring it" on most every single pitch nowadays - no more laying off until they needed it mentality enabling them to stockpile mind boggling Inning Pitched and Wins totals.

Pitcher wise, I would be comfortable that Satchell Paige and Lefty Grove would be in a starting rotation today. Tables turned, how many no-hitters do you think Nolan Ryan would have had back then?

[Mark]

There's a question whether Cobb would have adjusted his swing to adapt to the new game. But hitters like Wheat, Jackson, and Ruth would do more than just fit in. I suspect that Hornsby would put up nice power numbers today: he combined the linear and rotational motions that gave the others great power. As for the pitching, even today's starters pace themselves at times.
As for Ryan's ability to throw a no hitter way back when, I would guess he would sneak one in there, maybe pitching against the Browns.

[DanP]

I had a feeling I would be in the minority, but I didn't think I'd be the only one who felt the old-timers couldn't compete in today's game!

I have an open mind here .. So let me ask these questions:
Why is baseball the only sport where guys from 100 years ago could compete today? All Olympic Sports: No way, Football: No way, Basketball: No way, etc. etc. but Baseball, yes??

Let's say Walter Johnson did throw around 100mph. I don't know of any star pitchers with just a fastball. Why would it be different for him? Yes, he could develop another pitch, but that wasn't the question. We would be taking him from 1910 with what he had then and insert him into the 2011 season.

The old-timers didn't grow up playing organized baseball from the 6 years old. They didn't play 100 games in a single little league season (or even play little league), they didn't play year round in high school and college, they were much smaller and weaker than today's players, they didn't face competition from all over the world, there wasn't anywhere near the financial incentive there is today to become a great player, the hitters didn't have to face relief specialists starting from the 6th inning, the hitters never saw a slider, etc. etc.

I believe some of the pitchers could have done OK, and of course some could have been stars (Feller, Ruth, Grove, Hubbell, etc.) but not many of the hitters.

I believe Babe Ruth probably could have been a great pitcher, but I still believe he would have batted .250 in today's game.

I'm trying to rationalize what I'm missing here!

Dan

[prewarsports]

You cant think of Baseball like the other sports because it is completely different. Throwing a baseball is COMPLETELY seperate than anything else in other sports. The "bigger faster stronger" argument means nothing when it comes to throwing a baseball. No amount of weight training/nutrition/science can make a person who throws 90 MPH be able to throw 99 MPH. You can either do it or you cant which is why players 100 years ago ABSOLUTELY could throw just as fast as players today can.

I played Baseball at a very high level (College and semi-pro Summer Leagues with tons of Professional players). I was a VERY good player and hit .449 in the last league I played in during College. I was a big/strong/fast guy but I never once hit 80 MPH on the radar gun.

Science making a fastball faster is as absurd as science being able to make a chess player better with gatorade.

I would challenge ANYONE to answer these questions regarding these three players and explain how they are products of the modern game and that players like this did not exist before.


1. Is Prince Fielder (at least 80 pounds overweight) really taking advantage of all that modern science?

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

3. at 5'9" should we assume that "science" made Billy Wagner able to throw 103 MPH and there is no way he could have done it in 1910?


Rhys

[Wite3]

Okay...here is something that has been driving me crazy for a long time...the people who always say that pre-war players were only playing against 50% of the best players in the world because of the Negro Leagues.

First let me say that there were fantastic Negro League players who were every bit as good and often far better than the stars in the Majors.

BUT...with that being said...the competition to make it to and stay in the Majors was far more intense. Why?...simple...there were only 16 teams total with smaller rosters than today's team. In order to become Ty Cobb, you had to beat out the best of the best.

Imagine today's league with 30 teams and larger rosters. Yes, you are still beating out the best of the best even with the League's added players after Jackie. But people keep saying 50%...well, that 50% is added now and I suspect that Cobb, Wagner, Wheat, Johnson, Matty, and all the rest would fit right in. Heck, I would venture to say that many of the fourth men on several rotations in the first half of the 20th century would be 20 game winners now.

Now think about those first few years after Jackie when many of the best of the Negro Leagues started entering baseball...those years in the late '40s and early '50s must have been TOUGH! 16 teams before expansion and now twice the competition to make it? Was it harder for any player to be a star since the Negro Leagues opened up? Probably a bit but still just as tough. I do not think that every Negro League player was great and could play Major League ball. I also feel that the stars in the Negro League were probably the same proportion to the stars in the Majors. That 50% comparison probably does not hold up.

This is all just arm chair talk and my opinion but if anybody has studied this seriously, I would like to hear their take on it.

Joshua