Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today?

[BobbyVCP]

Everyone is saying that the pitching is so much better today then back then. You are not taking into consideration that the pitchers doctored the ball, spit on it and the ball stayed in play a lot longer. With that the pitcher could make the ball move a lot more then todays pitcher. So the lack of speed is made up with movement. Much harder to hit a curve ball then a fastball.

[JustinD]

I would say absolutely not.

I think each player was made for the eras they succeeded in and most likely would not be as successful in another...this is why you know their name. This also works in reverse, today's players may be faster and better trained but would never be able to handle the toughness and differences of the past eras. I enjoy the contributions of each player to the history their sport.

[packs]

I guess I just don't understand that viewpoint. Ruth so clearly was an antithesis to that thinking. During the dead ball era he set the home run mark. During the lively ball era he set the home run mark. He set a career home run mark that has only been eclipsed twice in the 80 plus years it's been since he last appeared in a game. He was an atypical player for each era he played in. I don't see why he wouldn't be the same atypical player today. It's not even just about the home runs. The guy hit 342 over his entire career while hitting the home runs. His career OPS plus is over 200. Not even Bonds is close.

[GregMitch34]

It's a ridiculous argument anyway. You either accept standing of player within his era or not. If the latter, you have to kick nearly everyone out of the Hall since you are basing everything on alleged improved players today. Why even have a HOF?

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

Everyone is saying that the pitching is so much better today then back then. You are not taking into consideration that the pitchers doctored the ball, spit on it and the ball stayed in play a lot longer. With that the pitcher could make the ball move a lot more then todays pitcher. So the lack of speed is made up with movement. Much harder to hit a curve ball then a fastball.

This is a fair point, but its worth mentioning that these factors were far more pronounced during the dead ball era prior to 1920 than they were during Ruth's prime, and changes to the rules limiting these (ie requiring balls be replaced when they got dirty) are sometimes cited as one of the things that enabled Ruth to do what he did.

[pcoz]

Absolutely he would still be great. Could you imagine if he weight trained in today's times? How can anyone stick him in today's game based upon the disparity of how good he was vs the rest of baseball then and not think he would still be great now is mind boggling. Era's change, players change, but all you can do is look at how well they did against their competition. If he played today he'd have 20 more pounds of muscle with short fences, in a juiced ball era. He'd still be the Babe.

[packs]

I haven't seen anyone offer any evidence that pitchers throw harder today than they did in the past. The reason you hear about so many guys throwing 99 or 100 is that they are specialized pitchers. They throw one inning. If they threw more than one inning they would be useless because having only one pitch is a death sentence to pitchers. Back when Ruth played you either had three pitches and could throw seven to nine innings a game, or you threw multiple innings in relief. You would have still had guys throwing 99, but if they only threw 99 they weren't going to be successful in the past iterations of baseball.