Could you or I have dominated the 1880s?

[irv]

I can't speak for baseball but I know in hockey, most/all teams nowadays would simply slaughter any hockey team from 20+ yrs ago imo, let alone a 100.

I can vaguely remember players smoking on the bench and drinking Coca Cola!

The speed, condition of the players, talent is 10 fold nowadays imo, but of course, there were always exceptions.

[boneheadandrube]

Based on some of the mechanics of the 19th century players (pitching motion & delivery, batting stance etc.) it doesn't look like the game was very advanced physically. I'd say a good college team would smoke all comers in 1880...

[coolshemp]

They may look not as strong, but I would wager that these dudes were a lot scrappier and tougher than today's players. The time that they lived in was more rough, in general, and it was the rare exception that a college educated youth would be involved in sports at a professional level. These guys lived fast and strong, an most likely had the IDGAF attitude towards life in general.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by coolshemp

They may look not as strong, but I would wager that these dudes were a lot scrappier and tougher than today's players. The time that they lived in was more rough, in general, and it was the rare exception that a college educated youth would be involved in sports at a professional level. These guys lived fast and strong, an most likely had the IDGAF attitude towards life in general.

I was thinking along the same lines. You might end up hitting better, but how long would you last doing so if one or more of them decided to take you out.

[mooch]

I'd like to think I'd do well, but honestly they likely had elite hand-eye coordination and speed, especially lateral quickness and agility. If not, someone else would have taken their place. These players may not have been big and bulky, but it is the coordination and quickness that distinguished them in their time. I doubt most of us would be able to hang with them unless one of us was at least a college level player. A big college, but not mlb player, would likely hit further and maybe run well, but they might struggle a little on contact and the nuances of small ball. Also, imagine trying to catch after being spoiled with modern gloves. Great thought experiment, nonetheless. What we'd all give for a shot!

[Econteachert205]

Give them gloves, modern equipment and training and one year and the best wouldcompete with today's players.

[kmac32]

I hit 500 off of the pitching machines used at Cubs fantasy camp and have a career 333 average off of the Cubs professional potchers. Have a single off of Lee Smith and one off of Shawn Boskie. Been struck out by Burt Hooton and Fergie Jenkins.

I also picked Lee Smith off of first base when I closed for the campers......of course I walked 3 batters and got shelled by many more. My ERA must be north of 90.00 and I have a blown save and a loss to my stats so pitching probably is not my forte

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by kmac32

I also picked Lee Smith off of first base when I closed for the campers......of course I walked 3 batters and got shelled by many more. My ERA must be north of 90.00 and I have a blown save and a loss to my stats so pitching probably is not my forte

The Braves are showing an interest.

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Based on some of the mechanics of the 19th century players (pitching motion & delivery, batting stance etc.) it doesn't look like the game was very advanced physically. I'd say a good college team would smoke all comers in 1880...

I mean a college team of today.

[rhettyeakley]

I doubt any old Joe Schmo from today would dominate if they were transported to the past. I think We see the mustaches and posed images and just assume they were terrible because they look awkward, some people really do have natural god given talent and they did then just like they do now.

Players bridge the gap from the 1880's to the 1900's and those people played alongside players from the 1900's that played alongside players from the 1920's and on and on. I can't ever remember a player saying that the players at the end of their careers were just so much better than when they started so I have a hard time believing that things change as much as we think. I am sure players today are better trained but just assuming everyone in the past would suck compared to today is silly. Some sports today barely resemble the same sport from 100 years ago but baseball is perhaps the one sport that has changed the least amount.

Nobody looking at a picture of Kent Tekulve in the 1970-80's thought he looked like a great athlete but the guy was a decent pitcher! I think we would be surprised at the ability of some of the players of yesteryear if we were to see them play.

-Rhett

[sycks22]

I remember hearing recently somewhere that they did some formulas to figure out that Walter Johnson threw 92-93 mph and he was "unhittable" during his time. If the fastest pitcher threw 92 back then wouldn't it be assumed that the average pitcher threw mid 80's or d-3 college?

[sbfinley]

If you think you could hit a prune shaped black sphere hurled from a spitballer with regular consistency. Yes, you would dominate.

[boneheadandrube]

"you or I"

Based on this meaning a team of vintage baseball card collectors being transported back in time to chellenge a team of 1888, then I would change my answer to "No, they would kick baseball card collectors asses."

[xplainer]

Yeah the spit ball was the pitch back then.
Also, remember you'd have to play the field. Pretty much no glove then.
Not as we know it today.

And they would slide with spikes up.
And you could break up a double play with a take out slide at second.
And catchers could get drilled on a play at the plate.
And pitches had to bat too.
And you could fake the pickoff at third, then check first.
And batters didn't have helmets.
And pitchers didn't have helmets in their cap.

Different era = different game.

Dominate? No. But might could play with them.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by sycks22

I remember hearing recently somewhere that they did some formulas to figure out that Walter Johnson threw 92-93 mph and he was "unhittable" during his time. If the fastest pitcher threw 92 back then wouldn't it be assumed that the average pitcher threw mid 80's or d-3 college?

I doubt this was true. Wasn't Bob Feller "unofficially" clocked by scientists and early equipment at 100 mph in his prime? There were players that easily saw both in their prime and some may have faced both. The way it seems almost all early players say Walter Johnson was the fastest and some say best pitcher which makes me think he was a hell of a lot better than D3.

In that same though, I am pretty sure way back it was still natural ability to throw a ball hard as it is today. For the sake of the initial arguement and for those who have never faced a pitcher who throws serious smoke, I highly encourage you to go to your local batting cage and step into the 85 or 90 mph stall and then give your answer afterwards in this thread. Many of the greatest pitchers had the natural ability to throw hard back then and today. They didn't do a bunch of exercises to throw harder, mostly just to loosen up. In fact, they probably went out drinking that night and got up and threw another 9 innings the next day. I think those guys were a lot tougher than you think. Jason