Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I've never understood why Mikan gets the Rodney Dangerfield treatment. The guy singlehandedly changed the game

I have no love or interest for the sport, but wasn't Mikan named the greatest athlete of the first half of the century at some point? I forget who bestowed the honor, but always questioned how this guy, in a then-fairly unpopular sport, would top a list of players from every professional sport in perhaps the greatest era of athleticism the world has ever known.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I have no love or interest for the sport, but wasn't Mikan named the greatest athlete of the first half of the century at some point? I forget who bestowed the honor, but always questioned how this guy, in a then-fairly unpopular sport, would top a list of players from every professional sport in perhaps the greatest era of athleticism the world has ever known.

I could see Jim Thorpe, but not Mikan.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I could see Jim Thorpe, but not Mikan.

I could see 100 or more over Mikan, but as I said, basketball is not my interest. And yes, Thorpe would make a great deal of sense. In fact, I'm certain he won a similar award from a different entity, thereby proving the true value of such things. Anyone can award anyone else anything.

[steve B]

I think that a big part of it is that while the way the game is played changes back and forth between small ball and home runs over all, the game doesn't really change all that much. How many years were there when hitting 300 was unusual? The only reason for fluctuations in stuff line stolen bases and some other stuff is in how the game is played. Few players are good enough to be allowed to operate outside the sense of "this is how the game is played"
Ruth, Rickey Henderson, Cobb, Ted Williams, could do their own thing because nobody sane would want them to not play their way.

But someone who would be stealing 30-40 bases in a running era might only do 10 -20 in a slugging era.

In other sports, the way the game is played leads to huge changes in individual production.

Fran Tarkenton was great, but because of how the game was played then vs now means you look at his stats and in todays game they appear very average. There are guys being let go that have similar stats to his best year.
Many fans don't look at the over all game, just the raw numbers.
Would guys like Tarkenton and Staubach or the lower passing numbers but more durable/verstaile players from farther back be great today? I think so.

Another change, look at something simple like thousand yard rushers. in 2000, there were more than enough to make a nice set of inserts. 23 of them. 2021? Only 7. I think that's from more platooning and specialization, plus teams getting smarter about not trying to let players get run down from overwork.
But there were only 2 in 1970, and three in 1980 so the changes in how the game is played over even a few decades have made for wildly differing stats.
I figure the big boost around 2000 was the passing game being used more opening things up for better running backs, plus maybe more plays working towards the outside.


Similar things I think are in play with Basketball and hockey.
Like the 92 olympic team was amazing basketball, but even by 96 it became a showcase for "stars" one of whom missed three straight set up tries at a dunk in a blowout of China. The NBA has sort of gone the same way.
Some set pieces to show off, a bunch of three pointers, and a bit of pretty basic stuff in between.

Hockey has been more stable, but the changes have been more stuff like pre or post goalie mask, non-wood sticks, the arrival of European players who play a different and at times less physical game than the NHL was in the 70's.

Soccer, who knows? The way it's played internationally, the teams can move leagues and level of leagues and it seems like there's no set season....

[mybuddyinc]

"Baseball is quite different from other mainstream sports in that you don't really have to be a great athlete to be a great player. That is to say you don't have to be able to run fast, jump high, have a quick first step, etc. Although it certainly helps. You have to be a good athlete to be a good center fielder, shortstop, or second baseman, but you certainly don't have to be an athlete to be a great pitcher or hitter. Babe Ruth wasn't going to win any foot races, and Bartolo Colon isn't going to be dunking any basketballs anytime soon. Baseball is more about timing, hand-eye coordination, and game theory."


Agree 100% ---- John Kruk once summed it up perfectly:

"Hey lady, I'm not an athlete, I'm a ball player" ............

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by steve B

In other sports, the way the game is played leads to huge changes in individual production.

Fran Tarkenton was great, but because of how the game was played then vs now means you look at his stats and in todays game they appear very average. There are guys being let go that have similar stats to his best year.
Many fans don't look at the over all game, just the raw numbers.
Would guys like Tarkenton and Staubach or the lower passing numbers but more durable/verstaile players from farther back be great today? I think so.

Tarkenton would be getting at least half a dozen roughing the passer calls in every game while throwing to receivers who aren't getting constantly bumped off the line of scrimmage, flattened by safeties as they ran across the middle, and hand-checked by cornerbacks as they ran down the sidelines.

Not a critique of the modern game, just an observation of how different things are.

I don't think there's any question QB's like Tarkenton and Staubach were great, no matter what era they were in.

It's when it comes to guys like Joe Namath, people get kind of over-heated with the over-rated talk. Not because they are comparing him to Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers...but to contemporaries like John Hadl and Daryl Lamonica who never got a sniff at the HOF, but who appear to have been objectively better at playing QB then Namath was.

[theshowandme]

Most 15-year-old fans today are not going to know Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Paul Waner, or Cap Anson. That is 15% of the 3000 hit club

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Most 15-year-old fans today are not going to know Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Paul Waner, or Cap Anson. That is 15% of the 3000 hit club

They are also not going to know Johnny Unitas, Gale Sayers, Frank Gifford, nor Bob Cousy, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and probably not even Stan Musial, Steve Carlton, and Roy Campanella. Time marches on, and our heroes march into the mist.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Tarkenton would be getting at least half a dozen roughing the passer calls in every game while throwing to receivers who aren't getting constantly bumped off the line of scrimmage, flattened by safeties as they ran across the middle, and hand-checked by cornerbacks as they ran down the sidelines.

Not a critique of the modern game, just an observation of how different things are.

I don't think there's any question QB's like Tarkenton and Staubach were great, no matter what era they were in.

It's when it comes to guys like Joe Namath, people get kind of over-heated with the over-rated talk. Not because they are comparing him to Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers...but to contemporaries like John Hadl and Daryl Lamonica who never got a sniff at the HOF, but who appear to have been objectively better at playing QB then Namath was.

That's exactly it. I sometimes wonder what those guys could do if they were playing in todays game. I'd would figure they'd but right up with the best of the modern guys.

On the other hand, John Hannah who looked huge in his time was only 6-2 265. Today he'd be a small quick lineman.